Different situations. PS+ has never been anything but advertised as a rental service, of course you don't own your games, you aren't paying for the games just the service. The Xbone DRM issue was that you were going to a high street store and buying the game, then it's installed on your machine and MS wanted to you check in with them every day to make sure that game is still yours. I can pay for a service like Netflix and I get to watch TV shows, but I've also bought the boxset of say Frasier, but the box set doesn't make me check every day with NBC servers to make sure I'm still allowed to watch it. I've already paid for that privilege (as I would when buying the game).

Why are so many people in this thread comparing different things to each other thinking they are the same? Xbox Live and PS+ are different. PS+ rented games is different to Xbox One DRM.

But that's not true.  I've never seen PS+ advertised as a rental service.  Ever.  People have constantly talked about the free games you get as a huge benefit.  But you don't own them.

I do agree about it not being apples to apples, but there is a principle here that many are just ignoring because it doesn't fit their narrative of Sony being good/pro-gamer and Microsoft being evil/anti-consumer.  Why doesn't Sony let you keep the games they 'give' you like MS is doing now?  Which is more disingenuous or anti-consumer?

Ultimately what you stated earlier and here is true:  XBL and PS+ are different services and a proper comparison to one another is not practical without numerous caveats.  Neither one is perfect though, so elevating one over the other at this point is rather petty.

Not sure why your clapping hardware forced DRM versus an optional software service makes sense yup. It is grasping at straws.

You never seen...Sony made it clear day 1 any fre games are available as long as you sub. That's the end of it, games from discount are always yours. 

Yeah but I dont own them. I dont believe that rental is as good as owning. And I still want my catalogue of owned games in 8 years time. Even if I lose my job and have no Live Gold, I still get to keep the games I get free. Thats not the case on PSN+. PSN+ is a nice program for non collectors I suppose. But not for me. I prefer being given free games to keep.

I can go to Blockbuster if I really want to rent.

@ Bolded. Xbox 360 started games for gold late. So had games free that came out 7 years ago. Xbox One starts this summer. Only 6 months after release. So we will get 2 free games 6 months old or less. In my country DR3 will still be £30 in the summer and thats a launch title. Or Crimson Dragon for example will still be £11.99 on download.

This time round we will be geting £40-£50 free games a month on Gold. + the discounts every week on titles digital that you dont need Gold for.

Fair enough on your first point. I guess I wouldn't know what to call it. PS+ was advertised though saying 'you get games', as well as other features like discounts in store or Cloud Storage etc, but part of the stipulation was that you kept paying, stop paying and you lose all the above. Stop paying Netflix and you can't keep watching it's content.

Too right, pro PS+ call Xbox Live a con, charging you for online (before) and giving you old games many people already own. Xbox Gold supporters claim games are only there until you stop paying. I guess early gen of just Xbox Gold, it was anti-consumer, it charged you for something everyone else got for nothing. PS+ appeared and Gold became more of a kick in the teeth as suddenly you had a subscription to just online, while PS+ gave you games and cloud features. MS had to step up their game to appeal more to the 360 gamers still playing online and still paying when across the way their mate was playing online and getting extra games for the same money.

In the case of why they can't let you keep them. PS+ games are not very old at all and many times, Sony's to give away. Bioshock Infinite came out in March 2013, not even a year ago, it's still selling now (Remember Me was on PS+ 4 months after release). Why would they (2K) give it to serveral million customers for far less than they can make from actual sales? They can also entice people to get the game for 'free' for a month or so and in that month they might buy DLC for it. The DLC is new, the game is newish.

Gold Games were different, they were old. Gears of War? A lot of Xbox owners already had that so it wasn't that appealing. The best they've given so far is Dead Rising 2 which is still a 3 year old game. The most recent, Sleeping Dogs, a step in the right direction but a 3rd party game given free to all Xbox users who pay for gold. A lot more people pay for Xbox Gold. Sleeping Dogs might never sell a new copy again not on 360.

The whole thing is petty. "What I pay for is better than what you pay for." is the entire argument. Me? I'll sit here on my extra £30 in my pocket a year because I don't want to pay for either.

If you get to keep the games for good well then they won't be blockbuster tiltes. How can the developers make money off it at all? 

Where is proof of the 2nd bolded sentence too? 

As a collector myself, digital copies of games are meaning less so what you mean by that?

In my country 6 months after release games dont have that much off.Gaming is going to go all digital. So I collect digital games now. I own them they are mine.

Nobody cares about the age of Games with Gold. There is competition whith much more to offer. Where were their minds then at the time PS+ was offered then?